Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner
vs.
JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., and THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, Respondents.
The Solicitor General and Attys. F. R. Quiogue & F. T. Dumpit, for respondents
PARAS, J.:
This petition for review seeks the reversal of the decision* of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 2480 promulgated on January 15, 1982 which set aside petitioner's assessment of deficiency income tax inclusive of interest and surcharge as well as compromise penalty for violation of bookkeeping regulations charged against respondent.
The antecedental facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Japan Air Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as JAL for brevity), is a foreign corporation engaged in the business of international air carriage. From 1959 to 1963, JAL did not have planes that lifted or landed passengers and cargo in the Philippines as it had not been granted then by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate here. However, since mid-July, 1957, JAL had maintained an officeat the Filipinas Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila. Said office did not sell tickets but was maintained merely for the promotion of the company's public relations and to hand out brochures, literature and other information playing up the attractions of Japan as a tourist spot and the services enjoyed in JAL planes.
On July 17, 1957, JAL constituted the Philippine Air Lines (PAL), as its general sales agent in the Philippines. As an agent, PAL, among other things, sold for and in behalf of JAL, plane tickets and reservations for cargo spaces which were used by the passengers or customers on the facilities of JAL.
On June 2, 1972, JAL received deficiency income tax assessment notices and a demand letter from petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (hereinafter referred to as Commissioner for brevity), all dated February 28, 1972, for a total amount of P2,099,687.52 inclusive of 50% surcharge and interest, for years 1959 through 1963, computed as follows:
|
1959 |
1960 |
1961 |
Net income per
investigation |
P472,025.16 |
P476,671.48 |
P734,812.77 |
| Tax due thereon |
133,608.00 |
135,001.00 |
212,444.00 |
Add: 50% surch.
1/2% mo. int. |
66,804.00 |
67,500.50 |
106,222.00 |
| (3 yrs.) |
24,049.44 |
24,300.18 |
38,239.92 |
| Total due |
P224,461.44
=========== |
P226,801.68
=========== |
P356,905.92
=========== |
|
1962 |
1963 |
S U M M A R Y |
Net income per
investigation |
P1,065,641.63 |
P1,550,230.48 |
P224,461.44 |
| Tax due thereon |
311,692.00 |
457,069.00 |
226,801.68 |
| Add:50% surch. |
155,846.00 |
228,534.50 |
356,905.92 |
| 1/2% mo. int. |
|
|
523,642.56 |
| (3 yrs.) |
56,104.56 |
82,272.42 |
767,875.92 |
| Total due |
P 523,642.56
============= |
P 767,875.92
============ |
P2,099,687.52
============= |
| Compromise Penalty |
P 1,500.00 |
On June 19, 1972, JAL protested said assessments alleging that as a non-resident foreign corporation, it was taxable only on income from Philippine sources as determined under Section 37 of the Tax Code, and there being no such income during the period in question, it was not liable for the deficiency income tax liabilities assessed (Rollo, pp. 53-55). The Commissioner resolved otherwise and in a letter-decision dated December 21, 1972, denied JAL's request for cancellaton of the assessment (Ibid., p. 29).
JAL therefore, elevated the case to the Court of Tax Appeals which, in turn, reversed the decision (Ibid., pp. 51-76) and thereafter denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Commissioner (Ibid., p. 77). Hence, this petition.
Petitioner raises two issues in this wise:
1. WHETHER OR NOT PROCEEDS FROM SALES OF JAPAN AIR LINES TICKETS SOLD IN THE PHILIPPINES ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES.
2. WHETHER OR NOT JAPAN AIR LINES IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
The petition is impressed with merit.
The issues in the case at bar have already been laid to rest in no less than three cases resolved by this Court. Anent the first issue, the landmark case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. British Overseas Airways Corporation (G.R. No.L-65773-74, April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 395) has categorically ruled:
"The Tax Code defines `gross income' thus:
`Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from profession, vocations, trades, business, commerce, sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interests, rents, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains, profits and income derived from any source whatever" (Sec. 29(3);Emphasis supplied)
"The definition is broad and comprehensive to include proceeds from sales of transport documents. The words `income from any source whatever' disclose a legislative policy to include all income not expressly exempted within the class of taxable income under our laws. Income means `cash received or its equivalent'; it is the amount of money coming to a person within a specific time x x x; it means something distinct from principal or capital. For, while capital is a fund, income is a flow. As used in our income tax law, `income' refers to the flow of wealth (Madrigal and Paternol vs. Rafferty and Concepcion, 38 Phil. 414 [1918]).
"x x x x x x
"x x x x x x
"The source of an income is the property, activity or service that produced the income. For the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activity within the Philippines. In BOAC's case, the sale of tickets in the Philippines is the activity that produces the income. The tickets exchanged hands here and payments for fares were also made here in Philippine currency. The situs of the source of payments is the Philippines. The flow of wealth proceeded from, and occurred within, Philippine territory, enjoying the protection accorded by the Philippine government. In consideration of such protection, the flow of wealth should share the burden of supporting the government.
"x x x x x x
"True, Section 37(a) of the Tax Code, which enumerates items of gross income from sources within the Philippines, namely: (1) interest, (2) dividends, (3) service, (4) rentals and royalties, (5) sale of real property, and (6) sale of personal property, does not mention income from the sale of tickets for international transportation. However, that does not render it less an income from sources within the Philippines.
Section 37, by its language does not intend the enumeration to be exclusive. It merely directs that the types of income listed therein be treated as income from sources within the Philippines. A cursory reading of the section will show that it does not state that it is an all-inclusive enumeration, and that no other kind of income may be so considered (British Traders Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 719 [1965]).
"x x x x x x
"The absence of flight operations to and from the Philippines is not determinative of the source of income or the situs of income taxation. x x x The test of taxability is the `source'; and the source of an income is that activity x x x which produced the income (Howden & Co., Ltd. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 601 [1965]). Unquestionably, the passage documentations in these cases were sold in the Philippines and the revenue therefrom was derived from a business activity regularly pursued within the Philippines. x x x The word `source' conveys one essential Idea, that of origin, and the origin of the income herein is the Philippines (Manila Gas Corporation vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 62 Phil. 895 [1935])."
The above ruling was adopted en toto in the subsequent case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Air India and the Court of Tax Appeals (G.R. No. L-72443, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 648) holding that the revenue derived from the sales of airplane tickets through its agent Philippine Air Lines, Inc., here in the Philippines, must be considered taxable income, and more recently, in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. American Airlines, Inc. and Court of Tax Appeals (G.R. No. 67938, December 19, 1989, 180 SCRA 274), it was likewise declared that for the source of income to be considered as coming from the Philippines, it is sufficient that the income is derived from activities within this country regardless of the absence of flight operations within Philippine territory.
Verily, JAL is a residentforeigncorporation under Section 84 (g) of the NationalInternalRevenue Code of1939. Definitionofwhata resident foreign corpora-tion is was likewise reproduced under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code.
The BOAC Doctrine has expressed in unqualified terms:
"Under Section 20 of the 1977 Tax Code:
"(h) the term `resident foreign corporation' applies to a foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines or having an office or place of business therein.
"(i) the term `non-resident foreign corporation' applies to a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines and not having any office or place of business therein."
"x x x. There is no specific criterion as to what constitutes `doing' or `engaging in' or `transacting' business. Each case must be judged in the light of its peculiar environmental circumstances. The term implies continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization (The Mentholatum Co., Inc., et al. vs. Anacleto Mangaliman, et al., 72 Phil. 524 (1941); Section 1, R.A. No. 5455). In order that a foreign corporation may be regarded as doing business within a State, there must be continuity of conduct and intention to establish a continuous business, such as the appointment of a local agent, and not one of a temporary character (Pacific Micronesian Line, Inc. vs. Del Rosario and Peligon, 96 Phil. 23, 30, citing Thompson on Corporations, Vol. 8, 3rd ed., pp. 844-847 and Fisher's Philippine Law of Stock Corporation, p. 415).
There being no dispute that JAL constituted PAL as local agent to sell its airline tickets, there can be no conclusion other than that JAL is a resident foreign corporation, doing business in the Philippines. Indeed, the sale of tickets is the very lifeblood of the airline business, the generation of sales being the paramount objective (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. British Overseas Airways Corporation, supra). The case of CIR vs. American Airlines, Inc. (supra) sums it up as follows:
"x x x, foreign airline companies which sold tickets in the Philippines through their local agents, whether called liaison offices, agencies or branches, were considered resident foreign corporations engaged in trade or business in the country. Such activities show continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements and performance of acts or works or the exercise of some functions normally incident to and in progressive prosecution of commercial gain or for the purpose and object of the business organization."
Under Section 24 of Commonwealth Act No. 466 otherwise known as the "National Internal Revenue Code of 1939", the applicable law in the case at bar, resident foreign corporations are taxed thirty percentum (30%) upon the amount by which their total net income exceed one hundred thousand pesos. JAL is liable to pay 30% of its total net income for the years 1959 through 1963 as contradistinguished from the computation arrived at by the Commissioner as shown in the assessment. Apparently, the Commissioner failed to specify the tax base on the total net income of JAL in figuring out the total income due, i.e., whether 25% or 30% level.
Having established the tax liability of respondent JAL, the only thing left to determine is the propriety of the 50% surcharge imposed by petitioner. It appears that this must be answered in the negative. As held in the case of CIR vs. Air India (supra):
"The 50% surcharge or fraud penalty provided in Section 72 of the National Internal Revenue Code is imposed on a delinquent taxpayer who willfully neglects to file the required tax return within the period prescribed by the law, or who willfully files a false or fraudulent tax return, x x x.
"x x x x x x
"On the other hand, the same Section provides that if the failure to file the required tax return is not due to willful neglect, a penalty of 25% is to be added to the amount of the tax due from the taxpayer."
Nowhere in the records of the case can be found that JAL deliberately failed to file its income tax returns for the years covered by the assessment. There was not even an attempt by petitioner to prove the same or justify the imposition of the 50% surcharge. All that petitioner did was to cite the provision of law upon which the surcharge was based without explaining why it was applicable to respondent's case. Such cannot be countenanced for mere allegations are definitely not acceptable. The willful neglect to file the required tax return or the fraudulent intent to evade the payment of taxes, considering that the same is accompanied by legal consequences, cannot be presumed (CIR vs. Air India, supra). The fraud contemplated by law is actual and constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some legal right. Negligence, whether slight or gross, is not equivalent to the fraud with intent to evade the tax contemplated by the law. It must amount to intentional wrongdoing with the sole object of evading the tax (Aznar v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-20569, August 23, 1974, 58 SCRA 519). This was not proven to be so in the case of JAL as it believed in good faith that it need not file the tax return for it had no taxable income then. The element of fraud is lacking. At most, only negligence may be imputed to JAL for not ascertaining the dispensability of filing the tax returns. As such, JAL may be subjected only to the 25% surcharge prescribed by the aforequoted law.
As to the 1/2% interest per month, the same finds basis in Section 51(d) of the Tax Code then in force which states:
(d) Interest on deficiency. Interest upon the amount determined as a deficiency shall be assessed at the same time as the deficiency and shall be paid upon notice and demand from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and shall be collected as a part of the tax, at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date prescribed for the payment of the tax x x x; PROVIDED, That the maximum amount that may be collected as interest on deficiency shall in no case exceed the amount corresponding to a period of three years, the present provisions regarding prescription to the contrary notwithstanding.
The 6% interest per annum is the same as 1/2% interest per month and petitioner correctly computed such interest equivalent to three years which is the maximum set by the law.
On the other hand, the compromise penalty amounting to P1,500.00 for violation of bookkeeping regulations appears to be without support. The particular provision in the said regulations allegedly violated was not even specified. Furthermore, the term "compromise penalty" itself is not found among the penal provisions of the Bookkeeping Regulations (Revenue Regulations No. V-1, as amended, March 17, 1947, pp. 836-837, Revenue Regulations Updated by Prof. Eustaquio Ordono, 1984).1âwphi1 The compromise penalty is therefore, improperly imposed.
In sum, the following schedule as recomputed illustrates the total tax liability of the private respondent for the years 1959 through 1963 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Net
Income |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
30% of Net Income as Income Tax Due under Secs. 24(a) and (b) (2) NIRC of 1939 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add 25% surcharge under Sec. 72 NIRC of 1939 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Add 6% interest per annum for a maximum of 3 years under Sec. 51(d) NIRC of 1939 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary of Total Tax Due from the Private Respondent |
_ __
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963 |
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_ __ __ __ __ __
P 472,025.16
476,671.48
734,812.77
1,065,641.63
1,550,230.48 |
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_ __ __ __ __ __
P 141,607.54
143,001.44
220,443.83
319,692.48
465,069.14 |
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_ __ __ __ __ __
P 35,401.88
35,750.36
55,110.95
79,923.12
116,267.28 |
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_ __ __ __ __ __
P 25,489.35
25,740.25
39,679.88 |
_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
_ __ __ __ __ __
P 202,498.77
204,492.05
315,234.66
399,615.60
581,336.42
P1,703,177.40
============ |
Accordingly, private respondent is liable for unpaid taxes and charges in the total amount of ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVENAND FORTY CENTAVOS (P1,703,177.40) The dismissal for lack of merit by this Court of the appeal in JAL v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R. No. L-30041) on February 3, 1969 is not res judicata to the present case. The Tax Court ruled in that case that the mere sale of tickets, unaccompanied by the physical act of carriage of transportation, does not render the taxpayer therein subject to the common carrier's tax. The common carrier's tax is an excise tax, being a tax on the activity of transporting, conveying or removing passengers and cargo from one place to another. It purports to tax the business of transportation. Being an excise tax, the same can be levied by the State only when the acts, privileges or businesses are done or performed within the jurisdiction of the Philippines (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corporation, supra).
The subject matter of the case underconsideration is income tax, a direct tax on the income of persons and other entities "of whatever kind and in whatever form derived from any source." Since the two cases treat of a different subject matter, the decision in G.R. No. L-30041 cannot be res judicata with respect to this case.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, (a) the petition is GRANTED; (b) the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 2480 is SET ASIDE; and (c) private respondent JAL is ordered to pay the amount of P1,703,177.40 as deficiency taxes for the fiscal years 1959 to 1963 inclusive of interest andsurcharges.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan,C.J., Narvasas, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,Jr.,Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,and Davide,Jr.,JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Penned by Presiding Judge Amante Filler and concurred in by Associate Judges Constante C. Roaquin and Alex Z. Reyes
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
